3/10/2012 - White to Draw

Baffling !You've only got to read the posts on this from beginning to end (and some of us do) to realise how utterly bemused & confused most people are. I managed to get about 3 moves right by playing tactically but I didn't understand the objective.

So white has to force a draw. First principles then (copied from the Learn/Basic Rules section of this site):-

The position reaches a stalemate where it is one player’s turn to move, but his king is NOT in check and yet he does not have another legal move

The players may simply agree to a draw and stop playing

There are not enough pieces on the board to force a checkmate (example: a king and a bishop vs. a king)

A player declares a draw if the same exact position is repeated three times (though not necessarily three times in a row)

Fifty consecutive moves have been played where neither player has moved a pawn or captured a piece.

So which of these applies when you get to the solution ? I just don't get it even after reading 'gutartas's analysis. Is this Chess.com's revenge for all the whining that goes on in this forum ?

Baffling !You've only got to read the posts on this from beginning to end (and some of us do) to realise how utterly bemused & confused most people are. I managed to get about 3 moves right by playing tactically but I didn't understand the objective.

So white has to force a draw. First principles then (copied from the Learn/Basic Rules section of this site):-

The position reaches a stalemate where it is one player’s turn to move, but his king is NOT in check and yet he does not have another legal move The players may simply agree to a draw and stop playing There are not enough pieces on the board to force a checkmate (example: a king and a bishop vs. a king) A player declares a draw if the same exact position is repeated three times (though not necessarily three times in a row) Fifty consecutive moves have been played where neither player has moved a pawn or captured a piece.

So which of these applies when you get to the solution ? I just don't get it even after reading 'gutartas's analysis. Is this Chess.com's revenge for all the whining that goes on in this forum ?

The solution given is not very convincing. The problem is, after 1.Bh3 white doesn't threaten anything. So 1...Bxh3 (or 1...Qxh3) is not forced for black. For example, why not 1...Bxe2 followed maybe by a check Bf3+ or BxN? Here's a nice continuation:

The solution given is not very convincing. The problem is, after 1.Bh3 white doesn't threaten anything. So 1...Bxh3 (or 1...Qxh3) is not forced for black. For example, why not 1...Bxe2 followed maybe by a check Bf3+ or BxN? Here's a nice continuation:

White isn't threatening anything? First off, take a glance at his queenside pawns, that can be turned in a hurry.

And take your own advice buddy.

3. Rxd1 isn't forced at all, and it leads to hanging of the rook.

For that matter, 4. Rxd6 isn't forced either, he would be an idiot to leave the bank rank available for that Queen check on e1. You have to play the best move for both sides, are you kidding me?

White would never hang his rook with 3. Rxd1. Start your continuation instead with 3. Qxf7, threatening the b7 pawn to finish off his passed pawns on the queenside and protecting his hung rook.

Help us finish translating:

We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!